MPCSD parcel taxes have the following exemptions:
"All property otherwise exempt from ad valorem taxes shall be exempt from the special tax. Any parcels owned and occupied by persons age 65 or older may apply for an exemption." Measure X on the March ballot, contains the following Exemptions:
"Upon application and pursuant to any procedures adopted by the District, an exemption from payment of the special tax may be granted on any parcel owned by one or more persons:
a) Sixty-five years of age or over who occupies said parcel as a principal residence;
or,
b) Receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, regardless of age, who
occupies said parcel as a principal residence; or,
c) Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, regardless of age, whose yearly income does not exceed 250 percent of the 2012 federal poverty guidelines issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, who
occupies said parcel as a principal residence.
Exemptions may be granted based on a one-time application and exemptions granted under priorspecial taxes levied by the District will not require re-approval, subject to the District’s right to verify a property owner’s continuing qualification for exemption."

MPCSD HAS NO PROVISION FOR TREATING HOMES ON CONTIGUOUS PARCELS AS ONE!

If you live in MPCSD, and are receiving more than one tax bill for a home on contiguous parcels, you would have been billed $2,557.74 for each additional contiguous parcel.

Language used in San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District parcel tax measure. Web Link

DEFINITION OF "PARCEL"
For purposes of the quality education renewal parcel tax, the term "Parcel" means
any parcel of land which lies wholly or partially within the boundaries of the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District, that receives a separate tax bill for ad valorem property taxes from the San Mateo County Assessor/Tax Collector, as applicable. All property that is otherwise exempt from or upon which are levied no ad valorem property taxes in any year shall also be exempt from the quality education renewal parcel tax in such year.
For purposes of this quality education renewal parcel tax, any such "Parcels" which
are (i) contiguous, and (ii) used solely for owner-occupied, single-family residential purposes, and (iii) held under identical ownership may, by submitting to the District an application of the owners thereof by June 15 of any year, be treated as a single "parcel" for purposes of the levy of the high quality education renewal parcel tax.

I suggest that anyone in the State of California whose properties fit the above criteria could request that their property be treated as a single "parcel" for purposes of the levy of ANY Parcel Tax! Agencies which reject such request would be risking a "class action" lawsuit.

I received this response from Eric Burmeister of MPCSD:

"Regarding contiguous parcels, while not a part of the formal provisions of the parcel tax, MPCSD residents are welcome and encouraged to visit our office and request a waiver for contiguous parcels on which one resident-owner resides. It is much less common in our community; however, we are more than willing to working with individual resident-owners in this situation."

As usual, Mr Hickey, you are very busy attacking our school district, whilst carefully avoiding the same issues in your own. You yourself know that RCSD does not allow you to exempt yourself from tax on a contiguous second parcel.

Driving down the value of our schools would drive down the value of our real estate -- and raise yours! Bravo, money in your pocket ... and out of ours. Your local properties were worth $10,000 more than ours in the mid-90's. But we've invested in our schools, and now ours are worth considerably more than yours. Indeed, our investment in school parcel taxes have contributed to a $325,000 greater valuation than if we'd followed your suit.

Go back to your own district. Put your mouth where YOUR money is.

RCSD DOES allow my senior exemption to apply to my 2 contiguous parcels. That's because I requested it. And, as you can see from my prior post, MPCSD will honor such requests. Neither district is taking a pro-active role on the issue.

All I have done is provide Menlo Park voters with information on the true cost of the MPCSD "world class" schooling. Any costs beyond basics, should not be funded by taxpayers.

Jack Hickey -- "All I have done is provide Menlo Park voters with information on the true cost of the MPCSD "world class" schooling. Any costs beyond basics, should not be funded by taxpayers."

Uh, Jack -- this is 2017, not 1817. The days where schoolchildren only needed to know the "3 R's" is long gone.

Maybe you understand that. Maybe you don't. At least those who are actually involved in education understand that.

Troll:

MPCSD is asking for funds to provide an education far beyond "the three R's." That's the problem. If the parents of the district want a platinum education for their children they should pay for it. Not ask the rest of us to pay for an education that is well above and beyond the norm.